The majority of Londoners were opposed to Blair's illegal and criminal war in Iraq. They, sadly, and not Blair and his minions, have suffered.

EQUALLY horrific is the continuous slaughter of civilians in Iraq and Afganistan by the United States government and its lap dog, the British government.

This terrorist act did not just happen: It's simply tit for tat. In CIA parlance (and the CIA should know), it's called blowback.

So, let's put aside the infantile thinking that says "they hate us for our freedom." They could not care less! They simply want the "civilized" countries to stop the violence. They want the stealing of their natural resources to stop. They want to be left alone! (Need I mention who "they" are?)

The retard in the Whitehouse and his pooch in 10 Downing Street only care about themselves and their ilk, not the common folk who work hard every day to make ends meet. I do hope the citizens of GB and the US realize this and toss them in jail where they belong.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Peter - you know that I agree with you that the war in Iraq was wrong, but you are ignoring the fact that terrorist attacks from Al Quaida have happened before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Of course we can nearly always only speak of attacks we suspect were carried out by Al Quaida or groups very closely affiliated with them, but those that were most likely carried out by this terrorist organisation include many that happened before these recent wars. Most notably the attacks on the World Trade Center (1993 & 2001), that military complex in Saudi Arabia (1996), the U.S. embassies in Africa (1998) or the USS Cole (2000)... even if they were not all al quaida, they were most certainly terrorist attacks by similar groups.

The 'war on terror' aka the war on Iraq was wrong, they should have damned well gone after the terrorists instead of the oil in Iraq. If they had put all that money, effort and man-power into chasing and hunting down bin Laden it would have been much better in my opinion and I hope that's what they will do now, instead of messing around they should start looking harder for the terrorists and looking into more ways to stop their funding (which I have been lead to believe is mostly from Saudi Arabia? or so I've heard at least... not Iraq anyway). Many innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq and I'm sure glad Saddam is gone, but no one had any right to attack Iraq - it would have been different to say to the Iraqis that if they wanted to overthrow their government and want a lot of miliary help to do so... but now Iraq is - as predicted - a mess, because the various factions there hate each other and Iraq doesn't seem to be able to govern itself in this situation - again predictable. There were other ways to get rid of Saddam, the war was not excusable.
But these terrorist attacks may have happened without those wars, I mean, these terrorists were attacking us long before those wars, it was the 9/11 attacks that started those wars, Bush would not have gone to war if they had not happened.
Those terrorists wanted to and were killing people and attacking the values of our civilisation before the 'war on terror' and so you saying that these attacks are the direct fault of both Bush and Blair is not quite true.
This whole east/west issue goes back a long time - hell, it goes back thousands of years, this is the culmination of all that went wrong in the relations between these two 'cultures' (I don't know what exact name to give to this... I hope you know what I mean...). It is not Bush's or Blair's fault what happened in Palestine before their times, or even in first Iraq war, or during the Soviet war to conquer Afghanistan for example or to those countries during the colonisation period etc, etc, etc... you could say the 'West' is to blame for all this I guess... but that is just as stupid as saying the whole 'East' is to blame for the atrocities that happened in London yesterday. We can go back in history and look for the first event that started this war, like Herodot did, but there is not much point in that, fact is that all these mistakes have been made and to place the blame on just two men is wrong - the reasons behind this go far back in history - Bush and Blair are not helping by not going after the terrorists but going to war in Iraq instead, they are to blame for that war - but they are not to blame for the fact that this enmity and these kind of terrorist attacks exist in the first place - that at least they are not responsible for.

well I think it's very hard, if not impossible, to say WHY did all of these terrible things happen. we, ordinary citizens, 'the cattle', do not know what's going on in the highest politics. some people suspect G. Bush the elder to owe 'some' money to bin Ladin, or so.... this dirty political business is simply too shady! indeed, theories are many.

peter wrote:So, let's put aside the infantile thinking that says "they hate us for our freedom." They could not care less! They simply want the "civilized" countries to stop the violence. They want the stealing of their natural resources to stop. They want to be left alone!

Emma is right and you, Peter, are dead wrong.

Modern Islamist concepts of jihad have their origins in the writings of Hassan al-Banna and Syed Abul Maududi. They were interested in restoring the unity of religion and state. They felt this could come about only by returning Islam to a traditional form governed by a strict interpretation of Islamic law. For them, jihad was intended to remove infidels from Moslem lands.

But their teachings were enlarged in the 1950s by Sayed Qutb. He proclaimed that all non-Muslims were infidels (including the Jewish and Christian 'People of the Book'). He also predicted a future conflict between Islam and the West. He reinterprets jihad to mean permanent conflict between Islam and non-Islam. In his view the two systems are incompatible and there is no possibility of coexistence.

Qutb's writings became even more influential after the 1967 Arab defeat at the hands of Israel.

His teaching was inherited by a Palestinian scholar named Abdullah Azzam who was, in turn, a teacher of Osama bin Laden.

To complete Emma's list of Islamist fundamentalist terrorist crimes against U.S. citizens before September 11, 2001:

April 18, 1983: bombing of the US embassy in Beirut by the Islamic Jihad, killing 63 people, including the CIA's Middle East Director, and injuring 120;

I may not be convinced that Iraq was 'the right war', but I know with certainty that we are not responsible for the hatred directed against us. The notion, Peter, that if we 'left them alone', they'd leave us alone is truly infantile. You're smarter than that.

If you care to gain some insight into the psychology of ressentiment, please read Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals" and Dostoyevsky's "Notes from the Underground".

PeterD wrote:The retard in the Whitehouse and his pooch in 10 Downing Street only care about themselves and their ilk, not the common folk who work hard every day to make ends meet. I do hope the citizens of GB and the US realize this and toss them in jail where they belong.

Ohhhhhhh......PeterD.......have I ever missed you! I haven't had that good of a laugh in such a long time. Your prose simply slays me.....but be nice....my sister is retarded, let's not lump her in with GWB!

First, I want to say hello to everyone, especially to Paul (et tu, Brute!) and Kopio.

Second, I shall be brief -- to the point.

Here goes:

"If you bomb our cities, we will bomb yours." Osama bin Laden in one of his recent broadcasts

Forget for a moment who uttered these words. Does anyone have a problem with the above statement? It sounds to me like comeuppance: if you screw with me, I'll screw you. How do you like them apples, dude!

You may say, however, that the killing of innocent civilians in London last Thursday was barbaric, criminal, and has no justification whatsoever. I absolutely agree. The perpetrators of these crimes have my eternal contempt; nothing would please me more than their arrest and prosecution. But how do you expect them to fight? They do not have the sophisticated weaponry of the West. They will use whatever means at their disposal. Whether your shredded to pieces by a cluster bomb or by a crude explosive device, the result is gruesomely the same.

Emma -- the lovely girl with the deep, expressive, almond-shaped eyes (Truly delightful, this Greek does say.) -- very eloquently stated two interesting points: 1. the attacks against Western targets have been going on long before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; 2. the attacks would have occurred regardless of the wars.

The first point is supported by facts; the second point is not. Many CIA analysts have unequivocably stated that the war in Iraq would increase terrorism dramatically, especially in countries like the U.S. and U.K., and, unfortunately, the statistics have borne this out. The terrorists in the Madrid bombings last year cited Spain's participation in the Iraq war as their reason.

Paul, always the gentleman, kindly provided us with a list of Islamist fundamentalist terrorist crimes against U.S. citizens before 9/11, including the dates, casualty counts, and even names. The casualties numbered not in the millions, not in the thousands, but in the hundreds.

I must say, the West has had it pretty easy. Let's go over to the "other side" -- you know, the one where all the collateral damage seems to be occurring. And, we'll keep it simple: only Iraq.

Unlike, Paul, I cannot come up with definitive numbers of casualties, let alone any names. You see, the Pentagon does not think it's important or relevant to count those civilians killed or maimed by the war -- it's just collateral damage. (Imagine how awful it would sound if the 9/11 deaths were classified as collateral damage. There would be outrage, and rightly so). Estimates (by Western sources) of civilian dead in Iraq number between 50,000 - 100,000. If I were to include the West's other war crimes ( Afghanistan, the U.S. -U.K. imposed sanctions on Iraq prior to the war, the occupied territories, etc., etc.) the tally would be in the millions. So much for Islamist fundamentalist crimes!

It's not too difficult to understand. Human beings want to be free -- free from violent and economic oppression. When threatened, they will fight back.

"Why don't we attack Sweden?" Osama bin Laden just prior the the U.S. election last fall

DUH!

~Peter

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

I also know that I'm not likely to change your mind about any of this. So just a few observations offered openly and amiably:

1. Yes, we all agree, Emma is lovely.
2. It is simply illogical, having granted that Islamist attacks occurred before these wars, to claim that attacks after the wars were necessarily caused by these wars. One can readily advance against this claim the simple observation that the same causes motivated both the pre and post-war attacks.
3. The 100,000 civilian dead in Iraq is the work of statistically meaningless study done by The Lancet. Even the left-leaning slate.com discredits it.
4. "When threatened, they will fight back". You fail to understand that almost everything threatens an Islamic fundamentalist. Go and learn the meaning of the word 'jahiliyyah'. You will then realize that to the Islamist, everywhere that Islam is not practiced is a place of scandal and worthy of destruction.
5. You conveniently ignored my remarks about bin Laden's 'academic' lineage.
6. I am not a gentleman.

edonnelly wrote:I find it interesting that you lump all "Arabs" into a single group and assume that they are all feeling such pain about freedom coming to their part of the world. The terrorists are not the majority, they are just the most vocal. Should we also give in to the vocal leaders of North Korea -- I'm sure that if they could just have nuclear weapons for "defense" and control of the whole peninsula that a lot of their pain would be eased and there would be great peace and happiness brought to all of the citizens.

North Korea is in a different situation than Iraq.
N.K. openly claims they have nuke but American government does't actually attack them, while Iraq had no such weapons of mass destruction and had no connection with the terrorist attack but Bush attacked Iraq even when the search for Bin Ladin was not over. The terrorist attack is not the reason America invaded Iraq. It was already planned and the 9.11 attack only gave them an excuse, however false it was. Conversely, And in the invasion many innocent Iraqi people lost their lives and it is a good false excuse for the terrorists to attack civilians of the 'free' world at random. And conversely again it gives Bush another, and more excuses to continue their so called War against Terrorism. Maybe that's why they don't really go after the terrorists, the good supply of false excuses.
It is easy to believe what the TV shows you and the simple relation between one tat and a following tit. But if you ignore what they say and just see what they do, you can really see what they are after.

edonnelly wrote:I find it interesting that you lump all "Arabs" into a single group and assume that they are all feeling such pain about freedom coming to their part of the world. The terrorists are not the majority, they are just the most vocal. Should we also give in to the vocal leaders of North Korea -- I'm sure that if they could just have nuclear weapons for "defense" and control of the whole peninsula that a lot of their pain would be eased and there would be great peace and happiness brought to all of the citizens.

North Korea is in a different situation than Iraq.N.K. openly claims they have nuke but American government does't actually attack them, while Iraq had no such weapons of mass destruction and had no connection with the terrorist attack but Bush attacked Iraq even when the search for Bin Ladin was not over. The terrorist attack is not the reason America invaded Iraq. It was already planned and the 9.11 attack only gave them an excuse, however false it was. Conversely, And in the invasion many innocent Iraqi people lost their lives and it is a good false excuse for the terrorists to attack civilians of the 'free' world at random. And conversely again it gives Bush another, and more excuses to continue their so called War against Terrorism. Maybe that's why they don't really go after the terrorists, the good supply of false excuses.It is easy to believe what the TV shows you and the simple relation between one tat and a following tit. But if you ignore what they say and just see what they do, you can really see what they are after.

Funny, I don't recall mentioning Iraq -- you made the connection between the terrorists and Iraq, not I. I thought we were discussing terrorists (or is it just an opportunity to spew out talking points?). I was referring to your post that said "It's a long history" and your statement, which I quoted, about grasping the pain of the terrorists. My comparison was about dealing with the vocal leaders of the "Arab" terrorists and the vocal leaders of North Korea (whom I also consider to be terrorists).

If you care to gain some insight into the psychology of ressentiment, please read Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals"

That's an interesting reference, especially since Nietzsche was talking about Christianity not Islam. It was the 1st book I read in philosophy at uni.

Nietzsche's thought about ressentiment is in no way constrained to his (mis)understanding of Christianity. You might want to re-read the section "What is the Meaning of Ascetic Ideals?" and then ask yourself whether or not radical Islam has its roots in the fetid soil of envy.

Paul, such eyes!...such eyes! They enthrall me. Then, Paul, her gaze!...her gaze! It is one of reflection -- serious, but full of compassion. What is she reflecting upon?

Paul wrote:2. It is simply illogical, having granted that Islamist attacks occurred before these wars, to claim that attacks after the wars were necessarily caused by these wars. One can readily advance against this claim the simple observation that the same causes motivated both the pre and post-war attacks.

The problem is the foreign policies of the rich nations, specifically America's policies: support for dictatorial regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; support for the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands; etc.. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan basically increased "their" hate exponentially.

Paul wrote:3. The 100,000 civilian dead in Iraq is the work of statistically meaningless study done by The Lancet. Even the left-leaning slate.com discredits it.

Statiscally meaningless? I'll tell you what's meaningless. This war is meaningless. One day it's WMDs, the next it's regime change. FYI, half the population of Iraq is under fifteen. If Anglo-American bombs, assualts, and checkpoints don't kill them, then lack of medicine, water, food, and electricity will! BTW, when was the last time you went to bed on an empty stomach?

Paul wrote:4. "When threatened, they will fight back". You fail to understand that almost everything threatens an Islamic fundamentalist. Go and learn the meaning of the word 'jahiliyyah'. You will then realize that to the Islamist, everywhere that Islam is not practiced is a place of scandal and worthy of destruction.

Every religion has its kooks. And all religious fundamentalists, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc., are kooks.

How would I know??? It's your government that recruited, trained, financed, and unleashed this freak on the world. Go ask them about his lineage.

Paul wrote:6. I am not a gentleman.

Your modesty is unbecoming, Paul. You are a good man.

Rhuiden wrote:Glad to see that you are back PeterD.

Thank you. I hope all is well with you.

Now, about your John Wayne avatar, may I suggest using Jimmy Stewart instead of the Duke. You see, unlike the Duke, Mr. Stewart volunteered and fought in WWII. Unlike the Duke, Mr. Stewart sent his son to fight in Vietnam, instead of somebody else's. Skip the phoney. Use "Mr. Smith."

~Peter

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Nietzsche's thought about ressentiment is in no way constrained to his (mis)understanding of Christianity. You might want to re-read the section "What is the Meaning of Ascetic Ideals?" and then ask yourself whether or not radical Islam has its roots in the fetid soil of envy.

Hi Paul, yes it's been a while since I read Nietzsche, my understanding of the finer points is all gone In this case though I still think the modern attacks are different. I thought Nietzsche was saying that while the Greek ethic praised strength/throwing your weight around outwardly (like modern terrorists), the Christians (unable to match them in strength) created a sickly ethic based on poverty, weakness, saintly dirtiness, hermetic starvation &c, i.e. attacking yourself.

I'm out of my depth thinking about ethics and politics though, I haven't looked at this in about 7 years. Also I've never studied Christianity or Islam so I couldn't sustain a conversation there either, basically I can offer nothing substantial here hehe

PeterD wrote:It's not too difficult to understand. Human beings want to be free -- free from violent and economic oppression. When threatened, they will fight back.

In general I would agree that humans want to be free. I do not think this to be the case with some of the islamic fundamentalist leaders. They seek to create a state where only they are free, where the religious leaders are in total control and the people are subject to their rules and regulations. Think of the Taliban before the US removed them from power. Where was the freedom there?

Now, about your John Wayne avatar, may I suggest using Jimmy Stewart instead of the Duke. You see, unlike the Duke, Mr. Stewart volunteered and fought in WWII. Unlike the Duke, Mr. Stewart sent his son to fight in Vietnam, instead of somebody else's. Skip the phoney. Use "Mr. Smith."

mingshey wrote:The terrorist attack is not the reason America invaded Iraq. It was already planned and the 9.11 attack only gave them an excuse, however false it was.

What do you base this claim on? This false claim has been around since the war started but no evidence has ever been produced to support it. If there were any, the democrats would certainly have used it during the last presidential election.

PeterD wrote:The problem is the foreign policies of the rich nations, specifically America's policies: support for dictatorial regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; support for the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands; etc..

I agree, I think the US should stop giving aid to any country that does not comply with the strings we attached. We would be giving very little money away.

PeterD wrote:Every religion has its kooks. And all religious fundamentalists, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc., are kooks.

Would I be considered one of the kooks?

PeterD wrote:Now, about your John Wayne avatar, may I suggest using Jimmy Stewart instead of the Duke. You see, unlike the Duke, Mr. Stewart volunteered and fought in WWII. Unlike the Duke, Mr. Stewart sent his son to fight in Vietnam, instead of somebody else's. Skip the phoney. Use "Mr. Smith."

I know Jimmy Stewart was a great American. I believe he served on a bomber during WWII. I believe the Duke served in other ways. I chose him as my avatar because he is my all-time favorite actor. Almost all of his movies (I would say all but I can't remember all of them off top of my head at the moment) had a positive message, did not contain any unnecessary language or sexual scenes, and were pro-American. He was also a conservative politically and he was known to enjoy playing chess.

Paul wrote: 3. The 100,000 civilian dead in Iraq is the work of statistically meaningless study done by The Lancet. Even the left-leaning slate.com discredits it.

Statiscally meaningless? I'll tell you what's meaningless. This war is meaningless. One day it's WMDs, the next it's regime change. FYI, half the population of Iraq is under fifteen. If Anglo-American bombs, assualts, and checkpoints don't kill them, then lack of medicine, water, food, and electricity will! BTW, when was the last time you went to bed on an empty stomach?

That is supposed to prove that the cited statistic is not meaningless?The age of the population of Iraq, or the fullness of Paul's belly have nothing to do with the statistic.

PeterD wrote: Every religion has its kooks. And all religious fundamentalists, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc., are kooks.

Paul wrote:2. It is simply illogical, having granted that Islamist attacks occurred before these wars, to claim that attacks after the wars were necessarily caused by these wars. One can readily advance against this claim the simple observation that the same causes motivated both the pre and post-war attacks.

The problem is the foreign policies of the rich nations, specifically America's policies: support for dictatorial regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; support for the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands; etc.. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan basically increased "their" hate exponentially.

Then you agree that the causes of all this hate go much deeper than the Iraq war and were there long before Bush or Blair were elected?

The war in Iraq has not made things better for sure and it may have made things worse in regards to international terrorism. But I do not know if there really are more terrorists than before. Many who before supported the US in that part of the world have been alienated by the Iraq war and I guess you are right that quite a few may have run off to join the terrorists. I have heard about terrorist training camps... obviously these terrorists must be trained and I suspect the training is quite lengthy - the new recruits that may have joined them because of the Iraq war will not have gone through training yet and it is unlikely that Al Ka'ida at least are that, well, what shall I call it... 'accessible'. If all US and UK secret security forces had to do was to go along and pretend to be 'wannabe terrorists' to uncover some of Al Ka'ida's bases, then I should think they would have done that by now. Those people who feel the urgent need to become a terrorist since the Iraq war will probably not find it that easy to join any major international terror organisation, if they have not had many connections to terrorists before the war.
I do not know all this for sure and don't really want to pretend to know much about the terrorist networks and how they operate and recruit, so that's why I did not mention this, although you are totally correct in pointing out that the war in Iraq has just increased support for the terrorists.
I do not agree with you though that an increased support for terrorism directly lead to these attacks. As Paul and I have pointed out, there have been terrorist attacks before the Iraq war. Al Ka'ida had it in for 'the West' long before the Iraq war, they don't need any more reasons to attack, they already hated the West before the war and can you honestly say that you know for sure there would not have been any terrorist attacks if the US and UK had not gone to war? Why would Al Ka'ida stop with the WTC?

Last edited by Emma_85 on Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Paul wrote: 3. The 100,000 civilian dead in Iraq is the work of statistically meaningless study done by The Lancet. Even the left-leaning slate.com discredits it.

Statiscally meaningless? I'll tell you what's meaningless. This war is meaningless. One day it's WMDs, the next it's regime change. FYI, half the population of Iraq is under fifteen. If Anglo-American bombs, assualts, and checkpoints don't kill them, then lack of medicine, water, food, and electricity will! BTW, when was the last time you went to bed on an empty stomach?

That is supposed to prove that the cited statistic is not meaningless?The age of the population of Iraq, or the fullness of Paul's belly have nothing to do with the statistic.

My dear Bert, I doubt very much Paul read the Lancet report. In fact I doubt very much if 99.9999% of Americans have even heard of the British medical journal, let alone having read it! And, Paul's qualification of slate.com being left-leaning was hilarious if not amusing. But you are right; the fullness of Paul's belly was uncalled for.

Now, the Lancet, for those who care to know, actually gave a spread, which was between 8,000 - 200,000 Iraqi dead. And, the most probable estimate was 100,000 Iraqi dead. The study was very carefully done -- even the Fallujah onslaught by American forces was excluded so as to not skew the results. Now, maybe the death toll is less, maybe it's more. Whatever the case may be, American forces have commited a huge scale human catastrophe in Iraq.

Bert wrote:

PeterD wrote: Every religion has its kooks. And all religious fundamentalists, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc., are kooks.

---> In the financially strapped state of Israel, which never says no to American handouts (cash only, please), freaky Zionist rabbis consider invalid any and all government decrees that are contrary to the will of G-d.

---> Closer to home, Pat Robertson, head of the Christian Broadcasting Network, not too long ago, called for nuking the State Department!

Sigh.

~Peter

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD wrote:Now, the Lancet, for those who care to know, actually gave a spread, which was between 8,000 - 200,000 Iraqi dead. And, the most probable estimate was 100,000 Iraqi dead. The study was very carefully done -- even the Fallujah onslaught by American forces was excluded so as to not skew the results. Now, maybe the death toll is less, maybe it's more. Whatever the case may be, American forces have commited a huge scale human catastrophe in Iraq.

That is quite a range. Lets assume that the estimate is reasonable, that does not mean that these people were killed (or all were killed) by the American forces. If you remember, Sadam was quite willing to use women and children as human shields. Their lives meant nothing to him. Could he have had those people killed with the intention of blaming it on the Americans? And remember, he had a history of killing his own people. Just speculating.....

edonnelly wrote:Funny, I don't recall mentioning Iraq -- you made the connection between the terrorists and Iraq, not I. I thought we were discussing terrorists (or is it just an opportunity to spew out talking points?). I was referring to your post that said "It's a long history" and your statement, which I quoted, about grasping the pain of the terrorists. My comparison was about dealing with the vocal leaders of the "Arab" terrorists and the vocal leaders of North Korea (whom I also consider to be terrorists).

Can a minority group take action for decades without any (active or passive) support from the people silent and peaceful? Though it is our common sense to discriminate between the terrorists who does take action and the people who keeps careful not to take actions that would bring further chain of revenge, we cannot say they are sympathetically not connected. I don't approve their attacks on civilians as much as I don't that of America's attack on Iraq. But they must have some reason they can appeal to the Arab people. That's why I say of their long pain outsider's often fail to grasp.
But I don't see why you bring North Korea in comparison. They are still in power over the North Korean people. They are not the minority there.

[edit]
I must add I'm not totally sure about the real cause of their pain. In many (even civilized) cultures people often get satisfied in finding a scapegoat and stop looking for the real cause of their pain. So however strong the terrorists might succeed in appealing to the Arab people, I don't deny the possibility that it could be a distortion of the reallity, or at least something our free world cannot take as true.

PeterD wrote:It's not too difficult to understand. Human beings want to be free -- free from violent and economic oppression. When threatened, they will fight back.

In general I would agree that humans want to be free. I do not think this to be the case with some of the islamic fundamentalist leaders. They seek to create a state where only they are free, where the religious leaders are in total control and the people are subject to their rules and regulations. Think of the Taliban before the US removed them from power. Where was the freedom there?

I agree with Rhuiden here. I don't agree that the terrorists are interested in freedom from violence or economic oppression. The people who commit terrorist acts are in favor of violence and oppression. A tyrannical islamic government is part of their stated goals. I think Peter is not cynical enough.

PeterD wrote:Every religion has its kooks. And all religious fundamentalists, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc., are kooks.

Calling the terrorists "kooks" is an insult to kooks everywhere. They are far worse than kooks. The word "fanatic" is too good for them.

PeterD wrote:So, let's put aside the infantile thinking that says "they hate us for our freedom." They could not care less! They simply want the "civilized" countries to stop the violence. They want the stealing of their natural resources to stop. They want to be left alone!

So let me get this straight: You honestly think that modern-day terrorism is an anti-violence campaign? Oh please.

PeterD wrote:Now, the Lancet, for those who care to know, actually gave a spread, which was between 8,000 - 200,000 Iraqi dead. And, the most probable estimate was 100,000 Iraqi dead. The study was very carefully done....

By any chance, did the study count up the number of Iraqis killed by terrorists? I expect these numbers are quite high. Peter, can you explain why any Iraqi would be motivated to kill other Iraqis?

Like it or not, the US forces have stated military goals behind all their activities. The US was overthrowing a well-armed government. That requires real force.

Can anyone explain what the military rationale is behind blowing up random subway trains? You are kidding yourself if you think the perpetrators are seeking liberation.

When the bin-Ladenist forces in Spain committed mass murder in the center of Madrid earlier in the year, they did so amid a huge controversy over the war in Iraq and on the eve of a general election. So badly did the Spanish government handle the affair—seeking to blame it all on a Basque nihilist faction—that many Spaniards were able implicitly to indict George W. Bush for the whole mess. This social and psychic suicide was not possible in the Dutch case. Holland gave up all concept of “empire” a generation ago. Moreover, it has since been the most generous and multicultural society in Europe, welcoming not only its former subjects from Indonesia but becoming a haven in general. And its reward has been to be targeted by Tawheed. One cannot emphasize enough that the victims here are not just secular artists like Theo van Gogh but people of Muslim origin who do not accept homicidal fundamentalism. This is the warning that many liberals have been overlooking or denying ever since the fatwah against Salman Rushdie in 1989. And it is spreading: even as I write this, a Belgian legislator of Moroccan extraction, Mimount Bousakla, has been threatened with “ritual slaughter” for denouncing van Gogh’s murder. Any thinking person can see that we will soon be facing jihad on the streets of Germany and France and England as well.

In principle they seek the freedom. but that's not the same kind of freedom as we think. They want freedom from violence. But through a mechanism relying on the violence towards a scapegoat, thus achieving the freedom from violence among themselves. They look for a scapegoat that is easy to blame for the social instability and unidentified fear and pains. And this mechanism needs a extreme violence or for the scapegoat. It has this duality and it makes the terrorists hard to understand. They want some kind of liberation the nature of which even they do not know. This mechanism haunts every culture and society there ever was and is, like bullying in the school. But in a 'civilized' nations we don't depend heavily on it thanks to the legal system. But in a culture the influence of the old religion is still very great, this kind of mechanism is heavily infiltrated in the minds of the people.

A couple of days ago I've picked up from my bookshelf "Violence and the Sacred" of René Girard which I bought 9 years ago, and had lost interest then. He shows the relation between the religion and violence in a striking clarity. Here's an article discussing the relation of 'violence and the sacred' AND the terrorism in this viewpoint:
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/violsacr.html

This interesting article (though written in 1997 and about Isreal) would argue in support of more military action by the US & Britain:

VIOLENCE AND THE SACRED wrote:Before the Jewish State can protect itself from Palestinian terrorism, its policies will have to convince would-be attackers that Israel will not allow itself to become a sacrifice. To accomplish this all-important goal, these policies will have to express the certainty of vengeance whenever Jews are slaughtered by Arab terrorists.

It also argues that the cause of the escalating violence is the people who argue against military responses and the people who say things like we should try to grasp the pain of the terrorists.

VIOLENCE AND THE SACRED wrote:By responding to each act of terror with self-criticism and degrading submission, the Jewish nation of terror victims reinforces the PLO, Hamas/Islamic Jihad idea that the Arab forces are engaged in genuinely sacrificial behaviour. Revolted by a stooped-over people that refuses to fight back, and that even scrapes its own flesh and blood from sidewalk altars without planning for punishment, these Arabs know that what they do must be sacred.

This interesting article (though written in 1997 and about Isreal) would argue in support of more military action by the US & Britain:

VIOLENCE AND THE SACRED wrote:Before the Jewish State can protect itself from Palestinian terrorism, its policies will have to convince would-be attackers that Israel will not allow itself to become a sacrifice. To accomplish this all-important goal, these policies will have to express the certainty of vengeance whenever Jews are slaughtered by Arab terrorists.

It also argues that the cause of the escalating violence is the people who argue against military responses and the people who say things like we should try to grasp the pain of the terrorists.

The article is an example that there are such analysis that the nature of the terrorism is not a mad insanity, but has some innate mechanism. But the solution it suggests is not enough. The article analyses only one aspect of the scene, about how a scapegoat is chosen, and how not to get chosen as one. In that aspect only, it is quite right. But it neglects how the sense of sacrificial crisis is turned on among the community of the Arab nation. And it also neglects the part of the theory that once the scapegoat is chosen it is easily fixed and not abandoned so easily. Military reactions would show them they are not the scapegoat of choice, but it only enlarges the scope of the circle of violence. It is not the real solution.

VIOLENCE AND THE SACRED wrote:By responding to each act of terror with self-criticism and degrading submission, the Jewish nation of terror victims reinforces the PLO, Hamas/Islamic Jihad idea that the Arab forces are engaged in genuinely sacrificial behaviour. Revolted by a stooped-over people that refuses to fight back, and that even scrapes its own flesh and blood from sidewalk altars without planning for punishment, these Arabs know that what they do must be sacred.

It is also important to show them you are not an easy prey as a scapegoat. But since it's not the final solution for the circle of violence, it cannot remove the terrorism while the cause of the crisis they feel is still present. They still want some scapegoat and once the target is fixed it is not easily abandoned. We need a more broad view. It is also true the birth of a 'heretic'(or 'atheistic') nation in the heart of the Islam world must have triggered the sense of crisis among them. If we think our 'free world' has some value that exceeds the idea of 'jihad', or more explicitly, the scapegoat mechanism for the removal of violence, we must think of a more civilized solution than engaging in the same kind of circle of violence.

[edit]
I must add, that the terrorists are wrong in two ways. In the first way that they have chosen the wrong scapegoat, which would bring fierce vengeance, and would only increase their crisis. And the second is their problem may not be purely a sacrificial crisis. It is a complex of political and economical problem. And the repeated ritual execution of the scapegoats don't bring them peace and stability.